Search form

Search

This House believes Ghana’s ban on smoking in public places is a model for Africa

Smoking tobacco, in all its forms, is a highly popular recreational drug. However, it is known that it is very harmful, and has been described by the World Health Organization as the single biggest cause of preventable death worldwide1. Due to the prevalence of its use, banning it entirely would be highly unpopular and politically something that would not be considered – Bhutan is the only country where it is illegal, it has been banned in the country since 20052.

The ill effects of tobacco should not be considered to simply be a “first world problem”, as tobacco smoking is not just a “first world phenomenon” – an estimated 82% of the world’s smokers live in lower and middle income countries3. Indeed, as tobacco use falls off in the developed world4, the international tobacco industry is looking at new markets. In parts of Nigeria, 25% of teenagers smoke5.

Many nations have brought in laws and policies aimed at banning or heavily restricting smoking in public places – a solution endorsed by the World Health Organization6. These bans often take the forms of bans on smoking in enclosed – i.e. indoor public places, or parts of them. This would cover workplaces, bars, restaurants and amongst other places. Reasons for these bans are legion – chief amongst them “passive smoking”, the risk of tobacco smoke on those who are not smoking themselves.

In 2012, Ghana banned smoking in public places7. Tobacco advertising had already been banned in the country in 1982.8 These measures while unusual in Africa are common in the Global North, where there has been resulting falls in tobacco use.

Smoking caused disease causes large expenses for healthcare systems, something which is particularly burdensome in countries without the rich well developed healthcare systems of the developed world. In the UK lung cancer, one of the diseases caused by smoking, costs £90 per person or £9071 per patient.1 Even the cost per head of population is higher than Ghana’s entire healthcare budget of $83.4 (about £50) per person.2

The reduction in smoking, which would be triggered by the ban, would lead to a drop in smoking related illness. A study in the US state of Arizona showed that hospital admissions for smoking related diseases dropped after a ban on smoking in public places3.

This would allow resources to be focused on the big killers other than tobacco – including HIV AIDS.

The argument that states will save money due to less people smoking based upon healthcare costs from treating smoking related diseases is over-simplistic. While smoking does cause medical costs, taxation can counterbalance this – in 2009, the South African government gained 9 billion Rand (€620 million) from excise duties on tobacco1. Paradoxically, less people smoking could lead to less money for other projects. Indeed, some countries in Europe raise the amount of health expenditure it causes from tobacco taxation2.

A ban on smoking in public places would help reduce the rates of people smoking, by making it appear socially unusual – people will have to leave enclosed public places to smoke, each time they want to smoke. This is particularly important in Africa which is at an early stage of the tobacco epidemic where it can be prevented from ever coming to be seen as being normal.

The ban both through the new obstacle and the change in norms could reduce smoking rates. In England, nine months after such a ban, the fall in smoking rates (such as with much of the Global North) accelerated1 - it has been claimed by up to 400,000.

What those statistics mean could be questionable – did the ban make people stop, or only provide an extra incentive or assistance for those who already want to stop to do so? It could be suggested that this would simply lead to increased smoking within the home.

Even so, other measures could be more effective, if the goal is a simple reduction in smoking numbers.

Title

Easy to introduce

Point

A ban on smoking in public places would be simple to enforce – it is an obvious activity, and does not require any form of complex equipment or other special techniques . It would largely be enforced by other users of public places and those working there. If it changes attitudes enough, it could be largely self-enforcing – by changing attitudes and creating peer pressure1.

It would require a large amount of resources for law enforcement to go in to such public places occasionally to see that the ban is being enforced.

It would be easier to enforce conditions relating to the packaging and production of tobacco, which occurs on fewer sites, than ban an activity in certain places which is not so enforceable.

Title

Reduces growth of tobacco

Point

Less people smoking means less tobacco being purchased – something that would contribute to the reduction in the tobacco industry. The industry is known for its exploitative labour practices, from child labour (80,000 children in Malawi work in tobacco farming, can result in nicotine poisoning – 90% of what is grown is sold to American Big Tobacco1) to extortionate loans.2 Reducing the size of such an industry can only be a good thing.

Yes, tobacco is harmful – but is it really a benefit to remove economic activity, which people choose to do? Labour abuses occur in other industries – but that’s an argument for increased labour protections and economic development, not economic self-inflicted wounds.

Title

Nip the problem in the bud

Point

Smoking rates in Africa are relatively low; a range of 8%-27% with an average of only 18% of the population smoking1 (or, the tobacco epidemic is at an early stage2). That’s good, but the challenge is to keep it that way and reduce it.

A ban on smoking in public places at this stage would stop tobacco gaining the widespread social acceptability that caused it to thrice in the 20th century in the Global North. The solution is to get the solutions in now, not later.

Is it really the job of African states to stop smoking? Africans have the same amount of personal responsibility to choose to smoke or not – policies should reflect that.

Title

Paternalistic

Point

Personal autonomy has to be the key to this debate. If people want to smoke – and the owner of the public place has no issue with that – it is not the role of the state to step in. While smoking is dangerous, people should be free in a society to take their own risks, and live with their decisions. All that is required is ensuring that smokers are educated about the risks so that they can make an informed decision.

Counterpoint

Personal autonomy arguments sound reasonable, but often ignore the wider consequences. Public health is a key issue – the state has a role in stopping people harming themselves – they may be harming themselves but the cost often falls on government through public healthcare, and therefore on all taxpayers. Moreover smoking also harms others through passive smoking, this is particularly true in public places that are enclosed.

Title

Unenforceable

Point

Smoking bans are often unenforceable in higher income countries. This is because they require expensive manpower or CCTV in order to stop those flouting the ban, with scarce resources a police force will almost always have other more important crimes to deal with. If Berlin1 and New York City2 cannot enforce them, most African cities won’t be able to either.

Ghana's advertising ban has been flouted in the past. When asked in a survey about advertising 35% of Ghanaians recalled hearing a tobacco advert on radio or television despite such ads being banned.3

It often doesn’t require enforcement – it changes attitudes itself, making people not do so. In Scotland, within three months 99% of locations abided by the ban, without the need for excess heavy handed enforcement1. This is because non-smokers will ask a smoker to stub it out if they are smoking where they are not allowed to. There seems little reason why this wont happen in Ghana or elsewhere in Africa just as in the west.

Even so, a lot of laws are not enforceable in all cases – that doesn’t mean that they will be complete failures.

A ban could harm the wider economy – from bars to clubs, if smokers are unable to smoke inside, they may be more likely to stay away. According to some critics, this lead to the closures of bars in the UK when such a ban was brought in1. Research in the United States has shown drops in employment in bars of between 4 and 16 percent.2

Even if such a link were true – the campaign against the ban on smoking in public places in the UK accept that it’s unlikely that it is the primary cause of closures in the UK1 – the public health benefits would make it worth it. Reductions on spending in some areas of the economy is likely to be balanced by increases elsewhere; of course there will be losses in some industries – particularly tabacco itself but those who stop smoking will have the money to spend elsewhere.

Moreover the economic effects are likely to be different in Africa; smoking outside in the UK, bearing in mind the infamous British weather, is a far less attractive proposition than smoking outdoors in many African countries.

If it’s not enforceable, enforceable solutions ought to be used instead. It would be easier to enforce pack labelling and branding requirements, from larger and clearer health warnings to even brand-free packs. Of course, American-style lawsuits by governments against tobacco manufacturers could be tried, as suggested in Nigeria1.

Each has its own disadvantages. A growing form of tobacco sales in Africa – Nigeria in particular – is the “single stick”1. If retailers break packets of cigarettes apart, customers won’t see the packets containing health warnings or similar.

Cost increases can lead to increased use of rollups2, or even counterfeit cigarettes,3 both of which have happened in South Africa as a result of taxation. At any rate, it’s not a zero sum game – more than one policy can be introduced at the same time.

Video Debate

Related Debates

About Us

The International Debate Education Association (IDEA) is a global network of organizations that value debate as a way to give young people a voice, with entities in the Netherlands, USA, UK, Macedonia, Kyrgyzstan and Tunisia.